HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Valiquette is Back

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-06-2003, 04:47 AM
  #1
PineJockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: E-Town
Posts: 616
vCash: 500
Valiquette is Back

It looks like that crafty Lowe just made $42000 for nothing. Very nice.

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/sport...9-06CA23ABD4E6

PineJockey is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 05:03 AM
  #2
dukeforrest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ontario
Posts: 97
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to dukeforrest
If it happens, I am thoroughly impressed. I almost think it could have been intentional. Could Lowe have known that the Panthers owner wanted a reliable backup and would berate Dudley for letting go of Hurme? Makes me wonder...

dukeforrest is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 06:07 AM
  #3
Oilers Ent
Registered User
 
Oilers Ent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Burnaby, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,665
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Oilers Ent
If Lowe knew that I would ask him what the numbers of the next 6/49 were.

Oilers Ent is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 06:12 AM
  #4
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
I think all this proves is Dudley has not been a smart GM of late.

momentai is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 06:25 AM
  #5
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentai
I think all this proves is Dudley has not been a smart GM of late.
Yup, I think you are right Momentai. It is a very ambiguous rule though.

These three paragraphs pretty much cover the issue.

13.27.
(a) No Club shall lose more than three (3) players through draft claim made by another Club(s), unless it chooses to so offer its players, except as provided in subparagraph (b) of this Article, provided that, in any year in which there is an Expansion Draft involving one or two new Clubs, then the above described Waiver Draft loss limits shall not be applicable and instead Clubs will have a loss limit in the next Waiver Draft of two players or one player, respectively, per Club. In addition, any Club that loses a goalie in any Expansion Draft may not, unless it so elects, lose a goalie in either the next Waiver Draft or the following year's Waiver Draft. "Draft claim" for this purpose does not include a player transferred as a result of the option described in subsection 13.29 hereof.

(b) A Club's three draft claim loss limit shall be increased by the number of draft claims it makes against other Clubs.

13.28. Goalkeepers: No Club shall lose more than one (1) goalkeeper which loss shall be included in the total of three (3) in subsection 13.27 above, unless the Club chooses to so offer additional goalkeeper(s), provided that, in any year in which there is an Expansion Draft involving one or two new Clubs, then the above described Waiver Draft loss limits shall not be applicable and instead Clubs will have a loss limit in the next Waiver Draft of two players or one player, respectively, per Club. In addition, any Club that loses a goalie in any Expansion Draft may not, unless it so elects, lose a goalie in either the next Waiver Draft or the following year's Waiver Draft.



At the end of the day it just wasn't a very smart move by Rick Dudley though ... I mean geez Dudley, if you are unsure, ask!

igor* is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 07:30 AM
  #6
Mowzie
Asst. Dishwasher
 
Mowzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lebanon, Alberta
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 8,308
vCash: 500
Whether KLO knew about this or not, I'm gonna give him the credit. that's a great chess move he made, and now he has an extra $42,000 to buy himself some new shoes. I assume that he will re-claim Steve Valaquette today. now if we can only get the comrie situation resolved before thursday...

Mowzie is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 07:35 AM
  #7
Burke's Evil Spirit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 15,455
vCash: 500
Wow...so Dudley lost Hurme for NOTHING. Wow.

Honestly, that's the worst bit of GM-ing I've seen...ever.

Burke's Evil Spirit is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 07:35 AM
  #8
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,127
vCash: 500
It's my understanding that it costs $50,000 to claim a player off waivers - isn't that the case?

Mizral is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 07:41 AM
  #9
USC Trojans
I have a plan.
 
USC Trojans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA Oiler fan
Posts: 11,759
vCash: 500
I don't think Lowe knew.
Who would've guessed that Dudley would pick up Valiquette, then put Hurme on waivers, have him get picked up, and then go ahead and sign Shields....thus putting Valiquette back on waivers. Someone put another quarter in the goalie merry go round.

USC Trojans is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 07:48 AM
  #10
Guy Flaming
HFB Partner
 
Guy Flaming's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Press Box & on Air
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,247
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Guy Flaming Send a message via Skype™ to Guy Flaming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
It's my understanding that it costs $50,000 to claim a player off waivers - isn't that the case?
Perhaps this is the US to CDN currency result? $50G US becomes $85G CDN? I don't know.

Guy Flaming is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 07:55 AM
  #11
Burke's Evil Spirit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 15,455
vCash: 500
Actually, I think the way the rule works is if you reclaim a player off waivers whom you just lost, I don't think you have to pay? Not sure, exactly.

Burke's Evil Spirit is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 08:10 AM
  #12
Funkymoses
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PineJockey
It looks like that crafty Lowe just made $42000 for nothing. Very nice.
score! now we can pay Comrie!

Funkymoses is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 08:35 AM
  #13
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
It's my understanding that it costs $50,000 to claim a player off waivers - isn't that the case?
It varies widely depending on how long the player has been playing on a professional contract. And whether they are a skater or defenseman.

For example; for Travis Green the waiver fee was maximum USD 6,500 (The Leafs can reduce it if they wish to). For goaltenders, this is the payment schedule:

For each goaltender who has not in the aggregate completed more than the following years under one or more professional contracts:

2 Years - $97,500
3 Years - $82,500
4 Years - $75,000
5 Years - $67,500


So unless Valiquette's first contract was a personal services contract to Lowell in the AHL (highly unlikely) then the waiver fee for him would have been USD 67,500. FLA also has to pay Valiquette USD 5000 in addition to this fee.

If Valiquette goes on waivers today, the Oilers can file to claim him within 48 hours, by fax. If none of the other teams that drafted before them in the waiver draft file a claim ... he will become Oilers property. The Oilers do NOT have first dibs here, the Journal was incorrect on this. The CBA is explicit in this regard.

The Oilers would have to pay 50% of the waiver draft fee, in their home currency (i.e. CAD 33,750, or about USD 25,300). The Oilers would also have to pay Valiquette USD 5000 in addition to this fee. (EDIT: any other team that claims him would have to pay the full waiver fee, plus USD 5000 to Valiquette).

So the Oilers would be up USD 37,200. And Valiquette would be up USD 10,000 before taxes.

There is no way on God's green earth that the Oilers planned this, in fact it sounds very much like they were caught unawares. But it looks like it might work out okay, becasue I really doubt that any other team will claim him.

BTW: Here are the other teams (in order of priority) who would be able to claim Valiquette ahead of the Oilers)

1. Carolina
2. Pittsburgh
3. Columbus
4. Buffalo
5. San Jose
6. Nashville
7. Atlanta
8. Calgary
9. Montreal
10. Phoenix
11. NY Rangers
12. Los Angeles
13. Chicago
14. NY Islanders
15. Boston

igor* is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 09:13 AM
  #14
oilers_guy_eddie
Registered User
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Intolerable climate
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by igor
BTW: Here are the other teams (in order of priority) who would be able to claim Valiquette ahead of the Oilers)

1. Carolina
2. Pittsburgh
3. Columbus
4. Buffalo
5. San Jose
6. Nashville
7. Atlanta
8. Calgary
9. Montreal
10. Phoenix
11. NY Rangers
12. Los Angeles
13. Chicago
14. NY Islanders
15. Boston
I thought that we got first dibs if the Panthers try to put Valiquette through waivers.

oilers_guy_eddie is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 09:53 AM
  #15
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by igor

BTW: Here are the other teams (in order of priority) who would be able to claim Valiquette ahead of the Oilers)

1. Carolina
2. Pittsburgh
3. Columbus
4. Buffalo
5. San Jose
6. Nashville
7. Atlanta
8. Calgary
9. Montreal
10. Phoenix
11. NY Rangers
12. Los Angeles
13. Chicago
14. NY Islanders
15. Boston
Actually the Oilers get first right of refusal. When you pluck a player off the waiver wire, and then try to send him down, the team you got him from gets to decide whether or not they want him back.

Basically, it is as a benefit to the players. Generally if you are sent to the minors, you don't earn the same amount of money, so if you are sent down another team can pick you up off waivers and use you for their team. But if you get sent down again, you are no better off than before, hence your original team gets the choice of whether or not they want you back.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 11:34 AM
  #16
M00se
Registered User
 
M00se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Right Here
Country: Canada
Posts: 912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Actually the Oilers get first right of refusal. When you pluck a player off the waiver wire, and then try to send him down, the team you got him from gets to decide whether or not they want him back.

Basically, it is as a benefit to the players. Generally if you are sent to the minors, you don't earn the same amount of money, so if you are sent down another team can pick you up off waivers and use you for their team. But if you get sent down again, you are no better off than before, hence your original team gets the choice of whether or not they want you back.

I heard an interview on Friday with Kevin Prendergast and he basically said the same thing. The Oil have first dibs on him.

M00se is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 11:52 AM
  #17
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by M00se
I heard an interview on Friday with Kevin Prendergast and he basically said the same thing. The Oil have first dibs on him.
Hmm, that's curious.

The CBA is fairly specific here, and that simply doesn't appear to be the case ... in fact explicitly so. Look it up yourself, I think it is quite obvious http://letsgopens.com/nhl_cba.php. And go to Article 13.

I wonder if Prendergast is blowing smoke or just doesn't know?

igor* is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 11:59 AM
  #18
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Actually the Oilers get first right of refusal. When you pluck a player off the waiver wire, and then try to send him down, the team you got him from gets to decide whether or not they want him back.
Do you have a source for this, because this is not how the CBA reads (granted at just one read through Article 13)?

Quote:
Basically, it is as a benefit to the players. Generally if you are sent to the minors, you don't earn the same amount of money, so if you are sent down another team can pick you up off waivers and use you for their team. But if you get sent down again, you are no better off than before, hence your original team gets the choice of whether or not they want you back.
I'm having trouble seeing the logic in your second paragraph. And I especially fail to see how that lends creedance to the first paragraph ... if anything just the opposite. Since the reclaiming team left the player unprotected in the first place, they surely weren't destined for the NHL squad.

igor* is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 12:44 PM
  #19
gmdevils
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
I'm pretty certain that the right of first refusal is given to the original club. I have heard it several times, and it happened when the Canes claimed Josh Holden from the Canucks, then tried to send him to the minor's, and the Canucks reclaimed him. The closest thing that I could find in the CBA was this:

13.18. (b) A player who has been acquired by waiver claim shall not
be transferred to another Club until the termination of playoffs
of the season in which he was acquired unless he is first offered
on the same terms to the Club(s) that entered a claim when
waivers were requested originally and the offer has been refused.


Maybe someone more familiar with the CBA could help out, because to me, that reads like the original team would've had to make a claim on him when he was put through waivers. Which doesn't make a lot of sense.

In addition, the reason that Lowe would make the 46k or whatever it actually was, is this rule:

13.37. (a) For players and goalkeepers acquired by waivers by
original Club (the Club having lost the player in the Waiver
Draft) as provided in subsection 13.14, the waiver price shall be
reduced by one-half.

(b) The currency for the claiming price shall be determined
by the location of the Club from which the player was claimed.

gmdevils is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 12:53 PM
  #20
bone
Registered User
 
bone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmdevils
I'm pretty certain that the right of first refusal is given to the original club. I have heard it several times, and it happened when the Canes claimed Josh Holden from the Canucks, then tried to send him to the minor's, and the Canucks reclaimed him. The closest thing that I could find in the CBA was this:

13.18. (b) A player who has been acquired by waiver claim shall not
be transferred to another Club until the termination of playoffs
of the season in which he was acquired unless he is first offered
on the same terms to the Club(s) that entered a claim when
waivers were requested originally and the offer has been refused.


Maybe someone more familiar with the CBA could help out, because to me, that reads like the original team would've had to make a claim on him when he was put through waivers. Which doesn't make a lot of sense.

In addition, the reason that Lowe would make the 46k or whatever it actually was, is this rule:

13.37. (a) For players and goalkeepers acquired by waivers by
original Club (the Club having lost the player in the Waiver
Draft) as provided in subsection 13.14, the waiver price shall be
reduced by one-half.

(b) The currency for the claiming price shall be determined
by the location of the Club from which the player was claimed.
Further to that,

13.20. When a Club claims a player on waivers, and,
subsequently, in the same season it requests waivers on the same
player and the original owning Club is the successful and only
Club making a waiver claim, then the original owning Club shall
be entitled to loan such player to a club in another league
within thirty days without further waivers being asked; provided
that such player has not participated in ten or more League games
(cumulative) and remained on an NHL roster more than thirty days
(cumulative) following such successful claim.

Essentially it looks as though if Valiquette is at any time to go to the minors this, we have first dibs on him for the minors, but if another team wants him in the NHL, he is theirs.

bone is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 12:54 PM
  #21
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,155
vCash: 500
I read section 13 as well (thanks Igor) and the thing that is not clear to me is how anybody could write so much and say so little. I agree with Igor though that if section 13 is the definitive section on the rules it is not clear that the Oilers get first crack regardless of past examples or precedents. It is simply not addressed.

theoil is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 01:31 PM
  #22
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmdevils
I'm pretty certain that the right of first refusal is given to the original club. I have heard it several times, and it happened when the Canes claimed Josh Holden from the Canucks, then tried to send him to the minor's, and the Canucks reclaimed him.
More likely because no other teams filed a claim for him, or specifically not teams that were below VAN in the standings the year previous.

Quote:
The closest thing that I could find in the CBA was this:

13.18. (b) A player who has been acquired by waiver claim shall not be transferred to another Club until the termination of playoffs
of the season in which he was acquired unless he is first offered
on the same terms to the Club(s) that entered a claim when
waivers were requested originally and the offer has been refused.
The way I read this is a bit different, gmdevils.

As an example:
If EDM and DAL were to file waiver claims for Valley off FLA, then EDM would get him because they finished below MIN last year.
If the Oilers then gave him the backup spot on the big club (highly unlikely I know, but this is an example) then half way through the year they decide to trade him to NYR ... MIN could intervene and nab Valley for the waiver fee if they so choosed.

I'm by no means a CBA expert though. Far from it. But that would be my interpretation. Probably this rule is a loophole closer, there to prevent a low-ranking team from picking up guys on waivers and later flipping them to high ranking teams ... and thus cheating all the in-between teams from a fair shot at the player.

Quote:
In addition, the reason that Lowe would make the 46k or whatever it actually was, is this rule:

13.37. (a) For players and goalkeepers acquired by waivers by
original Club (the Club having lost the player in the Waiver
Draft) as provided in subsection 13.14, the waiver price shall be
reduced by one-half.

(b) The currency for the claiming price shall be determined
by the location of the Club from which the player was claimed.
Yup. I agree totally.

igor* is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 01:44 PM
  #23
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bone
...
Essentially it looks as though if Valiquette is at any time to go to the minors this, we have first dibs on him for the minors, but if another team wants him in the NHL, he is theirs.
IMO Article 13.20 essentially saves Valiquette and the Oilers two days of their lives if the Oilers are the only team that files a claim for him when FLA puts him on waivers. And that seems sensible.

Your last point is well said, its the whole thing in a nutshell. Except the 'first dibs' thing should read 'preferential dibs'. 15 teams will have dibs first, but because the Oilers will be paying at half-rate ... no other team can win a 'war of attrition' with the Oilers if they both want Valley for the AHL.

So in a nutshell ... if some team wants Valley for the NHL this year, they'll get him. Otherwise he'll ply his trade as a RoadRunner in hogtown (assuming the Oilers want him back, and I can't see why they wouldn't).

igor* is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 04:23 PM
  #24
Shibumi
Registered User
 
Shibumi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 491
vCash: 500
"Honestly, that's the worst bit of GM-ing I've seen...ever."

I still think the Cam Neely deal is right up there.


Shibumi is offline  
Old
10-06-2003, 04:35 PM
  #25
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibumi
"Honestly, that's the worst bit of GM-ing I've seen...ever."

I still think the Cam Neely deal is right up there.

Yup, that was a belter. Button deserves to be a finalist too, for reacquiring McAmmond last year without realizing he would not be eligible to play. D'Oh!

igor* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:31 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.